Well, I must admit that it hasn't to date, and it might not ever happen, but
I like the fact that it could. One situation that seems possible is:
You might choose a certain structure for version 1 of an application. Then
when you do your requirements analysis for version 2, which includes a lot
more functionality, you may find that the original structure doesn't really
work that well with the new functions, so you change it. I have seen this
happen with other types of development (e.g., client/server), particularly
when a phased approach is taken and all of the requirements aren't fully
understood before phase 1 is developed.
Another example (I just thought of another one) might be if you are using
the directory structure for security purposes. You might group a bunch of
functions under an "admin" circuit, knowing that only administrators have
access to it. If you later find out that the security requirements have
changed, you may need to change your directory structure. Of course, there
are better ways to configure security - but that is a very quick way to do
it if the requirements are not that complex.
I guess I just like the fact that I'm not stuck with a nesting structure
once I choose one. I can change it around later in the game without having
to change a lot of files. To me, that's a nice feature, and I don't really
see a downside to it. Personally I see the performance argument as a red
herring. I believe someone else on this list once suggested that if you are
that concerned with squeezing every last ms of performance out of your app,
you may want to consider looking at another development language/platform.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick McElhaney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: April 2, 2001 11:35 AM
To: Fusebox
Subject: RE: Nesting circuits: I just don't get it! :(
Bob,
Why would your nesting structure change? Can you give me
an example or two?
Patrick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Silverberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 10:32 AM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: RE: Nesting circuits: I just don't get it! :(
>
>
> For me, it would be #2. If I must fully qualify all of my calls to
> fuseactions, I need to do that in every template (e.g., <FORM ACTION= ,
> CFLOCATION, <A HREF=). If my nesting structure changes, then I'd have to
> change each of those calls. Whereas with circuits.cfm, I'd only need to
> change that one file.
>
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick McElhaney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: April 2, 2001 10:04 AM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: RE: Nesting circuits: I just don't get it! :(
>
>
> Maybe I'm asking the question the wrong way. Why DON'T you
> just call a circuit by its fully qualified name?
>
> 1) Because you don't think it's possible (without
> prohibitively complex code)?
>
> 2) Because there are DISADVANTAGES to using fully qualified
> names?
>
> 3) Because there are ADVANTAGES to two part names?
>
> 4) Because it never occurred to you? (This is actually the
> impression I get from reading Hal's XFB 101.)
>
>
>
> Patrick
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
